hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 33 replies
  • Subscribers 221 subscribers
  • Views 624 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Xact Measure problem

slesholdofthreep
Has anyone had problems with Xact Measure TP dims? I have various parts with MMC on the DF as well as the Datums. As may be expected the DF and the datums all have different size tolerances. When setting up the dimension I tolerance them correctly, but once created the datum tolerances default to the DF tolerance. I have assigned variables for tolerances with little success. In fact I can type in the correct tolerance right into the dimension in the edit window and.. pfft... it reverts back to the DF tol. I am attempting to use this "improved" method because the hexagoon's say that legacy TP dims don't account for MMC on the datums correctly. WTF!

I am running V4.2mr2, but I have seen this in 4.1 and 4.2mr1.
Parents
  • Guys,

    I think you just taught me something. But, can you delve into the subject a little more?

    Let me start by regurgitating what I think I have just read in ASME y14.5 1994. If I have 6 holes that have a True Position of...

    6X DIA 6mm +0.3 -0.00
    |TP|DIA|0.1M|A|B|C|

    ...I should report this as a pattern? So really I would only have 1 statistic? Interesting, because I have been taught to report these all separately.

    Your example does NOT have VC on the datums. So you will not have datum shift. So it does not matter how you evaluate. You can do them individually, or a pattern (giving you 1 number; I think it ought to coincide with the worst one).

    The problem comes in when you have VC on your B and/or C datum. Now you allow datum shift. I think that if you evaluate as a pattern you will get a different result than if you evalate based on simultanuous requirements.

    Never tried that though..... This would be a good one for Don.


    Jan.
Reply
  • Guys,

    I think you just taught me something. But, can you delve into the subject a little more?

    Let me start by regurgitating what I think I have just read in ASME y14.5 1994. If I have 6 holes that have a True Position of...

    6X DIA 6mm +0.3 -0.00
    |TP|DIA|0.1M|A|B|C|

    ...I should report this as a pattern? So really I would only have 1 statistic? Interesting, because I have been taught to report these all separately.

    Your example does NOT have VC on the datums. So you will not have datum shift. So it does not matter how you evaluate. You can do them individually, or a pattern (giving you 1 number; I think it ought to coincide with the worst one).

    The problem comes in when you have VC on your B and/or C datum. Now you allow datum shift. I think that if you evaluate as a pattern you will get a different result than if you evalate based on simultanuous requirements.

    Never tried that though..... This would be a good one for Don.


    Jan.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement